Artist's interpretation, clearly Fiction, from around 370AD, on Pilate
Aug 7, 2018 23:12:27 GMT
The Herald Erjen likes this
Post by drystyx on Aug 7, 2018 23:12:27 GMT
It's actually what is missing that tells more about the piece and the times, but more than that, this is obviously never intended to "fool" anyone into thinking it's historical fact. That idea came only recently in the annals of time (I so bad want to say "anal" of time).
Being non apologetic, being a work of art that is never intended to be interpreted as authentic, we get what is actually an objective look at the mores of the time, and of what is "common knowledge" and accepted fact.
No one here will say it's Nonfiction. There will be the demonic hateful spirit of anti Christ that will cause feeble minds to make false accusations against those of us who don't climb on the world's bandwagon of anti Christ's unprovoked hatred.
The writer of the "Pilate letter" writes a long winded account that he knows no one will believe is actually from Pilate in addressing Christ. He even claims Jesus had blond hair, which is against the gospels claiming he fit into the mob so easy and a kiss was needed to identify him. It does fall in line with the Jewish texts that claim Jesus was the illegitimate son of a Roman Centurion.
That bespeaks of a Jewish interpretation here, and yet the writer maintains the sadistic and greedy nature of the leaders of the Jews at the time.
What's interesting is what is missing. In all the long winded speech that we know Pilate would never bother with about Jesus, we never hear Barabbas. We do hear the hatred Pilate had for the lead Jews and for Herod, and how he despised them.
It's the omission of Barabbas in roughly a late fourth century piece, that bespeaks of what was common knowledge at the time.
In this regard, Barabbas was the focus of the crucifixion. Pilate definitely would improve troop morale by crucifying the seditionist and enemy of Rome. He fully figured the masses of Hebrews would cheer for releasing Jesus. This "turnabout" was a huge blow to him, not so much because it meant Jesus would die, but because it meant Barabbas would live. That is why he washed his hands of the affair.
We also see the reference to Socrates. In 375 A.D., or whenever, History wasn't as full of names as today. Socrates was big news to Romans. He was a big hero to almost everyone in the Western world. And there's no doubt an educated Roman would equate Jesus with Socrates upon learning about Jesus. The "friendship" angle is the artist's interpretation, but the overall empathy was quite well known at the time. Pilate liked Jesus because the Pharisees and Herod didn't like Jesus.
Now Pilate would have no qualms about killing even someone he could like, but he'd much rather crucify Barabbas. Again, common knowledge in the fourth century A.D.
The artist took chances. The church was still being persecuted, on and off. Even Constantine wasn't really a Christian in terms we think of today. Historically, Constantine placed a two dollar bet on every horse in the race. He sacrificed to all the gods in hopes of getting the right one. He hated the idea of one vengeful god who didn't let you put two dollars on every other god in the race. Constantine was the ruler, and he said "well, I decide, and that's that."
We realize the author is semi idolizing Pilate here, so he's not of the pure Christian mode. He's an artist, not trying to sell Christianity, because it's already realized as Fact for some reason. Yet the artist isn't an adherent to what "society" says. He has his own mind, and explores different avenues.
It is the exploration of poetic license here that bespeaks of an attitude we can no longer fathom.
Being non apologetic, being a work of art that is never intended to be interpreted as authentic, we get what is actually an objective look at the mores of the time, and of what is "common knowledge" and accepted fact.
No one here will say it's Nonfiction. There will be the demonic hateful spirit of anti Christ that will cause feeble minds to make false accusations against those of us who don't climb on the world's bandwagon of anti Christ's unprovoked hatred.
The writer of the "Pilate letter" writes a long winded account that he knows no one will believe is actually from Pilate in addressing Christ. He even claims Jesus had blond hair, which is against the gospels claiming he fit into the mob so easy and a kiss was needed to identify him. It does fall in line with the Jewish texts that claim Jesus was the illegitimate son of a Roman Centurion.
That bespeaks of a Jewish interpretation here, and yet the writer maintains the sadistic and greedy nature of the leaders of the Jews at the time.
What's interesting is what is missing. In all the long winded speech that we know Pilate would never bother with about Jesus, we never hear Barabbas. We do hear the hatred Pilate had for the lead Jews and for Herod, and how he despised them.
It's the omission of Barabbas in roughly a late fourth century piece, that bespeaks of what was common knowledge at the time.
In this regard, Barabbas was the focus of the crucifixion. Pilate definitely would improve troop morale by crucifying the seditionist and enemy of Rome. He fully figured the masses of Hebrews would cheer for releasing Jesus. This "turnabout" was a huge blow to him, not so much because it meant Jesus would die, but because it meant Barabbas would live. That is why he washed his hands of the affair.
We also see the reference to Socrates. In 375 A.D., or whenever, History wasn't as full of names as today. Socrates was big news to Romans. He was a big hero to almost everyone in the Western world. And there's no doubt an educated Roman would equate Jesus with Socrates upon learning about Jesus. The "friendship" angle is the artist's interpretation, but the overall empathy was quite well known at the time. Pilate liked Jesus because the Pharisees and Herod didn't like Jesus.
Now Pilate would have no qualms about killing even someone he could like, but he'd much rather crucify Barabbas. Again, common knowledge in the fourth century A.D.
The artist took chances. The church was still being persecuted, on and off. Even Constantine wasn't really a Christian in terms we think of today. Historically, Constantine placed a two dollar bet on every horse in the race. He sacrificed to all the gods in hopes of getting the right one. He hated the idea of one vengeful god who didn't let you put two dollars on every other god in the race. Constantine was the ruler, and he said "well, I decide, and that's that."
We realize the author is semi idolizing Pilate here, so he's not of the pure Christian mode. He's an artist, not trying to sell Christianity, because it's already realized as Fact for some reason. Yet the artist isn't an adherent to what "society" says. He has his own mind, and explores different avenues.
It is the exploration of poetic license here that bespeaks of an attitude we can no longer fathom.
